Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Sadler

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Sadler

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Football coach who has only ever been assistant manager or youth team manager / coach. References provided are all passing mentions in sports coverage of a general nature, with the exception of the Gateshead one which is from his own club and akin to a player profile. Did play football but only at youth level, failing WP:NFOOTY. ClubOranje^T 09:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ClubOranje^T 09:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —ClubOranje^T 09:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete assistant coaches at lower league football teams are not notable. MLA (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article is not bad in most respects. The subject gets enough press coverage for verifiability but the youth team career and the coaching do not quite add up to enough notability although coverage like this from the BBC brings it quite close, hence the weakness of my delete !vote. If he were to become more notable in future (e.g. by becoming a team manager) then this article would be worth resurrecting and expanding. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - doesn't quite meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is out of date because Sadler became a first team coach in August. As a result, he regularly does interviews for local papers like this, which could be considered WP:ROUTINE I'm sure. I am undecided because there is no established guideline for coaches who don't pass WP:NFOOTBALL, which is something I would like to see addressed. Rui Faria is deemed notable because of shenanigans in a European match, scraping the barrel of WP:GNG, but in all honesty there isn't much between them. Sadler coaches a group of fully professional players in a fully professional league. No different from René Meulensteen and Tony Strudwick, to name two. If he is not notable then so be it. I would just like to see the grey area removed and consistency implemented. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is always sad when people put good efforts in to making an article which then fails due to an intrinsic problem with the subject, rather than any deficiency in their efforts. If clearer guidelines could help avoid this happening then that can only be a good thing. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOOTBALL clearly states the criteria - managers that have managed at international senior level or managed a team in a fully professional league - anything outside this requires GNG that shows the subject to be notable, (ie, not just "routine sports coverage of a general nature". A coach is just another body doing a job without the fame of the lime-lighters, same as groundsmen, physios, masseurs, agents...I don't see how it can get clearer without shutting the GNG door completely and saying simply you must meet this hard'n'fast criteria of "having managed at level X". One simply needs to look at the subject and ask; "has he achieved anything particularly notable in the scheme of things"--ClubOranje^T 07:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.